I have to admit, that I don't quite understand what the inability to create signed rsls has to do with the usage of rsls themselves.
The problem is that the Flashplayer is able to install rsls that are signed by Adobe. Usually the Adobe FDK rsls were also available in signed versions (swz files). These were dynamically loaded the first time they were needed and installed by the Flashplayer. The second time the libs were needed the installed versions were used reducing the download time dramatically. Now the problem is that Adobe won't sign Apache SWCs as they are no longer in charge of the libs code (Understandable). Giving Apache a key to be able to also create signed RSLs would eventually open serious security problems because a signed manipulated swz would be used by every other website using the same version of a given lib. Coming back to the RSLs ... The difference between a signed and an unsigned RSL is just, that the unsigned rsl is loaded on every visit of a user. As far as I know there is no other difference. So I don't quite understand why the lack of availability of signed rsls should have any effect on built applications and the default linking type. Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013 14:19 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: RSLs and signing I did not realize that Apache Flex does not use RSLs by default. What's the story with signing? Is that an issue with cross-domain security? Is there any way to get an Apache signature approved for Flash? Either way, I'd imagine I'd want RSLs for the simple reason that updating apps should result in a smaller download. Harbs On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > The default setting for Apache Flex is to not use RSLs because Adobe > cannot sign the Apache Flex RSLs. That's probably why your SWF is bigger. > > > On 2/8/13 10:31 PM, "grimmwerks" <gr...@grimmwerks.com> wrote: > >> Hey all - long time listener first time caller. >> >> I've taken a project that was originally 4.6 and I flipped it to 4.9; >> comparing the same code on two computers - when I build with the 4.6 >> sdk I get a swf of 304k (with all the other extraneous libraries such >> as osmf, mx, sparkspins, etc) -- whereas with 4.9 the main sf is >> 1.1mb -- that's a huge difference with no other changes in code no? >> >> >> >> >> Garry Schafer >> grimmwerks >> gr...@grimmwerks.com >> portfolio: www.grimmwerks.com/ >> >> >> >> > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
